pageok
pageok
pageok
Help Harry Reid Read:

If you, like me, think that the Senate majority leader might want to read something written by Judge Sonia Sotomayor before he votes to confirm her to the Supreme Court, which opinion should he read? We know he'd prefer not to read any, as he said so. Yet given that Reid does not believe in reflexive deference to Presidential nominations -- as demonstrated by his opposition to some prior nominees -- and he's opined on the quality of other justices' opinions, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect him to Reid to read at least one Sotomayor opinion. As Reid may be intimidated by the sheer volume of Judge Sotomayor's output -- it may even exceed the size of the stimulus bill -- he may need help. Thus, my question: If Reid is to read only one Sotomayor opinion, which one should it be and why?

Related Posts (on one page):

  1. Help Harry Reid Read:
  2. Reid Would Prefer Not to Read:
rosetta's stones:
...her case for the designated hitter. Baseball's probably too complex for Reid, though.
6.3.2009 11:32am
GD:
Maybe Harry should start with her opinion in the firefighter case?
6.3.2009 11:37am
gerbilsbite:
Isn't the answer here obvious? Farrell v. Burke!

(And GD: way to demonstrate that you never read the Ricci opinion yourself. Good job.)
6.3.2009 11:44am
A.S.:
Yet given that Reid does not believe in reflexive deference to Republican Presidential nominations -- as demonstrated by his opposition to some prior Republican nominees -- and he's opined on the quality of other Republican-appointed justices' opinions, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect him to act like a partisan hack and approve Sotomayor without having read at least one Sotomayor opinion.

Fixed.
6.3.2009 11:46am
Justin (mail):
I can't believe someone was so reflexive as to ask Senator Reid to read an opinion that doesn't exist ("her opinion in the Firefighter case"). No, that's not right. I do believe that.
6.3.2009 11:48am
K. Dackson (mail):
Why not have Sen Reid read an opinion that does not exist? After all, it fulfills his desire to not read anything....

Some of you people need to recalibrate your sarcasm detectors.
6.3.2009 11:56am
Houston Lawyer:
What's with the assumption that Reid ever learned to read?
6.3.2009 11:56am
Steve H:

Maybe Harry should start with her opinion in the firefighter case?


Wow.

Were you aware that she did not write an opinion in the firefighter case? The panel issued a per curiam, meaning that it was a ruling from the panel as a whole, not an opinion from any of the judges writing for him- or herself.

Anyway, the whole ruling is here. It's a real barn-burner:


PER CURIAM:

We withdraw our Summary Order of February 15, 2008. Ricci v. DeStefano, 264 Fed.Appx. 106 (2d Cir.2008).

Plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (Arterton, J.) granting the defendants' motion for summary judgment on all counts.

We affirm, for the reasons stated in the thorough, thoughtful, and well-reasoned opinion of the court below. Ricci v. DeStefano, 554 F.Supp.2d 142, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73277, 2006 WL 2828419 (D.Conn. Sept. 28, 2006). In this case, the Civil Service Board found itself in the unfortunate position of having no good alternatives. We are not unsympathetic to the plaintiffs' expression of frustration. Mr. Ricci, for example, who is dyslexic, made intensive efforts that appear to have resulted in his scoring highly on one of the exams, only to have it invalidated. But it simply does not follow that he has a viable Title VII claim. To the contrary, because the Board, in refusing to validate the exams, was simply trying to fulfill its obligations under Title VII when confronted with test results that had a disproportionate racial impact, its actions were protected.

CONCLUSION

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
6.3.2009 11:57am
CFG in IL (mail):
Should Harry Reid be reading her opinions?

Seriously: is this the best use of a senator's time, and if all senators read every supreme court nominee's opinions, would it improve the quality of their decision-making? Or would it have the opposite effect?
6.3.2009 12:05pm
Steve H:
Anyway, I would recommend Norville v Staten Island Hospital, 196 F.3d 89 (2d Cir 1999). This is a case Glenn Greenwald argued and blogged about.

Writing for the panel, the supposedly racist Judge Sotomayor upheld the dismissal of the black female plaintiff's race discrimination claim on the ground that the plaintiff lacked evidence to support it. (What a radical.) The panel also unanimously held that the trial court improperly instructed the jury on the plaintiff's ADA claim and thus ordered a retrial of that claim, which the plaintiff ultimately won.
6.3.2009 12:06pm
David Welker (www):
Jonathan Adler,

I find these two posts of yours about Reid, especially their sarcastic titles, to be immature. You can do better than that, I would hope. Do you have anything intelligent to say or is the extent of your intellect making up lame titles?

I think a couple of things are obvious.

While Supreme Court justices are very important, their confirmation isn't the most important business before the Senate. The Senate should not come to an absolute standstill while all 100 senators devote themselves to doing nothing more than reading every last word that Sotomayor has written in her life.

You wish that members of the legislature would read every last word in the legislation they voted on. That does not strike me as sensible. But, according to you I guess it is okay to avoid reading legislation that you vote against. That makes a lot of sense! It is okay to be "uninformed" voting against legislation, but not for it? That makes no sense. You are not advocating that Senators and Representatives make uninformed votes, are you?

It is not necessary for members of the legislator to read every line of every piece of legislation to be "informed" about what that legislation does.

See, there is this really cool thing that some of us at least of have been very cognizant of since Adam Smith wrote The Wealth of Nations. That thing is called division of labor. I know, crazy idea, isn't it!

Yeah, the Senate the House make use of this idea. I know, it sounds crazy, but Senators and Representatives make use of these things called "committees." So, how it works is that Senators and Representatives specialize and focus more on the implementation details of legislation and other votes.

Now, you may think that the division of labor is a crazy idea. I mean, it doesn't make sense to rely on others for things that are important, does it? I mean, I am sure that you built the computer you use to make lame titles for even more lame blog posts yourself, right? I am sure you also grow your own food, and cook everything from scratch, right?

What? That isn't practical for your own life? Well, it isn't practical for the United States Senate either. If Reid were to read one or two opinions of Sotomayor, the benefit would be close to nil. If he were to read a whole lot, the benefit may not be nil, but he would have to neglect work on his own on the committees he is actually assigned to, which do not include the Judiciary Committee.

So, here is what Reid should do. If Leahy, Feingold, Feinstein, Schumer, Durbin and their entire staff all agree that they are going to confirm Sotomayor and Reid knows he is ideologically aligned with them, he can rely on them to perform the detailed examination of her record. Only if there is a split amongst them or Reid felt his philosophy diverged from theirs would it start to make sense for Reid to divert time from other extremely important business to reading Sotomayor decisions.

Oh, and your views are wholly impractical. That your impractical views are framed in a sarcastic and immature way is icing on the cake.
6.3.2009 12:06pm
levisbaby:
The Didden opinion, no question.

In under two pages he will completely be able to understand her philosophy towards property right. Nevermind that it was the opinion of a 3 judge panel and nevermind that it was actually an opinion addressing the statute of limitations.

Oh, and the opinion should put to rest all of the blather about empathy since she displayed none at all towards the aggrieved property owner.
6.3.2009 12:08pm
Tucker (mail):
They don't read the legislation they vote on, why on Earth should they read a judge's opinion before they vote to confirm?

I don't see why they bother with the hearings... (Face time on TV, obviously.) Worlds Greatest Deliberative Body, what a crock.
6.3.2009 12:13pm
Jim Copland (www):
First of all, your question assumes that Reid is smart enough to make heads or tails of any opinion -- I'm skeptical of that assumption, so I'm not sure reading Sotomayor's opinions would actually add any value.

But assuming arguendo that Reid could understand what he was reading, I'd make a strong pitch for an off-the-radar case called Tasini v. N.Y. Times, 972 F. Supp. 804 (1997), which Sotomayor decided while a district judge, involving the copyright privileges of freelance authors vis-a-vis their publishers. In my view, Judge Sotomayor reached an arguably right policy result by misapplying the statutes. The case is particularly illuminating because:

1. She decided alone. Even on signed panel opinions, judges routinely make concessions to their colleagues to "buy" their unanimity. And they rely on their colleagues to correct their errors. District judges are out on their own.

2. It was a case of first impression.

3. It involves an area of law -- intellectual property -- that was presumptively an area of her expertise. Of course, I'm aware that her private-law experience was in trademark, not copyright, and that there's a big difference. But the gap isn't huge; we aren't talking about a tax case, where she'd be assumed more likely to make an error. (See, e.g., Rudkin v. Commissioner, 467 F. 3d 149 (2006), when she converted a "would" to a "could," an approach the Supremes unanimously found to "fl[y] in the face of the statutory language," 552 U.S. ___ (2008)).

4. There are good higher-court opinions on the same case to consult, namely Chief Judge Winter's opinion reversing her on the 2d Circuit, 206 F.3d 161 (1999) (disclaimer: I was a clerk in Judge Winter's chambers when this opinion was written); Justice Ginsburg's opinion for a 7-justice majority affirming that reversal, 533 U.S. 483 (2001); and Justice Stevens's dissent, joined by Justice Breyer. The very fact that 2 justices agreed with Judge Sotomayor -- for the reason that "the principal goals of copyright policy are better served by" her approach shows (a) that she's not a wildly-out-of-the-mainstream jurist (and she's not); but (b) that she has a particular approach to statutory construction that is a minority view on the current Court and that Senators should discuss and contemplate.
6.3.2009 12:19pm
Steve H:
The Didden opinion, no question.

Should probably post that one, too, so people can see that there really was no such thing. The entire unpublished unsigned ruling of the three-judge panel, including two GWBush appointees, follows. The Takings Clause "ruling" is in bold (and my apologies for OCR errors):


Plaintiffs-Appellants appeal from a May 24, 2004 decision and order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Colleen McMahon, J.) dismissing their complaint alleging various constitutional violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Village of Port Chester and others. We assume the parties' familiarity with the facts and procedural history in this case. We review the District Court's decision to grant a motion to dismiss a complaint pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) de novo. Taylor v. Vermont Dep't of Educ., 313 F.3d 768, 776 (2d Cir.2002).

In April 1998, Defendant-Appellee G &S Port Chester, LLC, ("G &S"), entered into a development agreement with Defendant-Appellee Village of Port Chester that named G &S as the designated developer of a marina redevelopment project. On July 14, 1999, after a public hearing, the Defendant-Appellee Village Board of Trustees adopted a resolution in which it made a finding of public purpose for condemnation of the properties located in the redevelopment district. In March 2003, Appellants discussed with representatives of a pharmacy chain the possibility of constructing a pharmacy on their property. A portion of Appellants' property adjoined the redevelopment district and another portion lay within the redevelopment district. According to Appellants, at a November 2003 negotiation session with Defendants-Appellees G &S and Wasser, Wasser demanded $800,000 from them in order to avert a condemnation proceeding of their property within the redevelopment district, and offered to allow them to proceed if Defendants-Appellees were given a partnership interest in the project. Appellants refused both demands and, two days later, they received a petition seeking to condemn their property. On appeal, Appellants advance constitutional claims based on the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments asserting, inter alia, that they have a right "not to have their property taken by the State through the power of eminent domain for a private use, regardless of whether just compensation is given."

The statute of limitations applicable to § 1983 claims in New York is three years. Patterson v. County of Oneida, 375 F.3d 206, 225 (2d Cir.2004). "While state law supplies the statute of limitations for claims under § 1983, federal law determines when a federal claim accrues." Connolly v. McCall, 254 F.3d 36, 41 (2d Cir.2001). Under federal law "a cause of action generally accrues 'when the plaintiff knows or has reason to know of the injury that is the basis of the action.'" M.D. v. Southington Ed. of Educ., 334 F.3d 217, 221 (2d Cir.2003) (quoting Leon v. Murphy, 988 F.2d 303, 309 (2d Cir.1993)). Appellants had reason to know of the basis of their injury when the Board announced its public purpose finding on July 14, 1999. Appellants, however, brought suit in January 2004, more than three years after the date their claims accrued, and thus their claims are time-barred. We reject Appellants' contention that their injury actually accrued in November 2003 when G &S and Wasser "first utilized their de facto eminent domain power against [them] in an effort to exact a cash payment or partnership interest" in the pharmacy project.

Moreover, even if Appellants' claims were not timebarred, to the extent that they assert that the Takings Clause prevents the State from condemning their property for a private use within a redevelopment district, regardless of whether they have been provided with just compensation, the recent Supreme Court decision in Kelo v. City of New London, 125 S.Ct. 2655, 162 L.Ed.2d 439 (2005), obliges us to conclude that they have articulated no basis upon which relief can be granted. See id. at 2668 ("Just as we decline to second-guess the City's considered judgments about the efficacy of its development plan, we also decline to second-guess the City's determinations as to what lands it needs to acquire in order to effectuate the project."); see also Rosenthal &Rosenthal Inc. v. New York State Urban Dev. Corp., 771 F.2d 44, 46 (2d Cir.1985). Finally, we agree with the district court that Appellees' voluntary attempts to resolve Appellants' demands was neither an unconstitutional exaction in the form of extortion nor an equal protection violation.

The district court properly dismissed the complaint on the ground that the Appellants' claims are time-barred. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.
6.3.2009 12:19pm
David Welker (www):

First of all, your question assumes that Reid is smart enough to make heads or tails of any opinion -- I'm skeptical of that assumption, so I'm not sure reading Sotomayor's opinions would actually add any value.


Your recent comment assumes that you are smart enough to make heads or tails of any opinion. It also assumes you are smart enough to evaluate the intelligence of others. It also assumes that the Nevada Bar admits attorneys who cannot understand even the simplest judicial opinion. I am skeptical of all three of these assumptions.

Anyway, I just wanted to compliment you on choosing to bring rude skepticism about the intelligence of other people to the discussion. I want you to know that I found that approach to be very persuasive! You must be so smart! Yes you are! You are the smartest! Go you! *pats you on the head* Fetch!
6.3.2009 12:30pm
Richard Nieporent (mail):
"I understand that during her career, she's written hundreds and hundreds of opinions. I haven't read a single one of them, and if I'm fortunate before we end this, I won't have to read one of them”

In other words, “Don’t confuse me with the facts, I have my mind made up.”
6.3.2009 12:38pm
David Welker (www):

In other words, “Don’t confuse me with the facts, I have my mind made up.”


No, in other words, if Leahy, Feingold, Feinstein, Schumer, Durbin, Specter et al. and their staffs all come to a positive view of this nomination without dissent amongst their ranks, I will defer to their judgment because they have similar judicial philosophies. Time is a scarce resources, and the United States Senate has other extremely important business to attend to other than the very important business of confirming Sotomayor.

The principle is to not waste scarce resources unnecessarily. Maybe some people think that waste is a virtue. From that view, I dissent.

The whole idea is called division of labor. Adam Smith and all that jazz.

Of course, I guess you think that anyone who drives a car without knowing how to rebuild an engine must be a crazy ignoramus.
6.3.2009 12:44pm
A.S.:
Well, someone wrote those 3 paragraphs in the Per Curiam opinion in Ricci. Maybe a Senator should ask her if she was the one.
6.3.2009 12:44pm
pluribus:
Richard Nieporent (mail):

In other words, “Don’t confuse me with the facts, I have my mind made up.”

You probably know that the Senate is organized along commitee lines. You probably know that the Senate refers judicial nominations to the Judicial Committee for its recommendations. You probably know that the Judicial Committee recommends that nominations eitherbe confirmed or rejected and that majority and minority reports are commonly issued. You probably also know that Senator Reid is not a member of the Judicial Committee and customarily votes in accordance with the majority or minority reports of that committee. You probably know that senators who do not belong to particular committees are not expected to, and customarily do not, replicate the work of the committee members, which will include reading opinions if the opinions become critical to their recommendation. But not if they do not.
6.3.2009 12:54pm
AndrewK (mail):
I understand where this is coming from, but in the Farrell case the phrase "reasonable parolee who had been convicted of sexual crimes involving minors" is used. Let that be your laugh of the day.
6.3.2009 12:58pm
pluribus:
A.S.:

Maybe a Senator should ask her if she was the one.

Of if it was drafted by a staff attorney or clerk. After that question is answered, then maybe it will be time for senators to rush to read the opinion and either condemn her for it or dismiss it as shedding no light on her qualifications to sit on the Supreme Court. Not before.
6.3.2009 12:59pm
ShelbyC:

Were you aware that she did not write an opinion in the firefighter case? The panel issued a per curiam, meaning that it was a ruling from the panel as a whole, not an opinion from any of the judges writing for him- or herself.



Huh. Are "sarcasm" tags required now? In Web 1.0 the compiler would infer sarcasm based on the context. :-).
6.3.2009 12:59pm
AndrewK (mail):
As a matter of tactics, knowing that Reid might support the Didden opinion, may I suggest looking for a Sotomayor opinion that REID might find problematic? Maybe something anti-gambling?
6.3.2009 1:00pm
LarryA (mail) (www):
I can't believe someone was so reflexive as to ask Senator Reid to read an opinion that doesn't exist ("her opinion in the Firefighter case"). No, that's not right. I do believe that.
”Reflexibly” I’d suggest the gun rights case, that being my main interest. However, in this instance and given the emphasis on empathy, I think it’s interesting that there was no opinion in Ricci. I might want Reid to ask something like, “Is it possible for you to find that a white male plaintiff is the victim of discrimination?”

Plus, it’s a very short read.
6.3.2009 1:02pm
Matthew K:

”Reflexibly” I’d suggest the gun rights case, that being my main interest. However, in this instance and given the emphasis on empathy, I think it’s interesting that there was no opinion in Ricci. I might want Reid to ask something like, “Is it possible for you to find that a white male plaintiff is the victim of discrimination?”

Plus, it’s a very short read.

You are familiar with Pappas v. Giuliani, right?
6.3.2009 1:06pm
pluribus:
LarryA:

However, in this instance and given the emphasis on empathy, I think it’s interesting that there was no opinion in Ricci.

Critics of Judge Sotomayor really should try to get their facts straight. Yes, there WAS an opinion. No, it was not HER opinion. It was a PER CURIAM opinion. If this distinction is too subtle for you, then I suggest that you step back, take a deep breath, and withhold comment for a while, as you are confusing the issue, not adding to anybody's understanding of it.
6.3.2009 1:09pm
Chris 24601 (mail) (www):
"Why not have Sen Reid read an opinion that does not exist?"

That reminds me--Meinong needs to be part of Leiter's philosophers-influencing-law poll, as well as Frege.
6.3.2009 1:10pm
ShelbyC:




However, in this instance and given the emphasis on empathy, I think it’s interesting that there was no opinion in Ricci.



Critics of Judge Sotomayor really should try to get their facts straight. Yes, there WAS an opinion. No, it was not HER opinion. It was a PER CURIAM opinion. If this distinction is too subtle for you, then I suggest that you step back, take a deep breath, and withhold comment for a while, as you are confusing the issue, not adding to anybody's understanding of it.


My understanding is that there was, in fact, no opinion for a while, just a summary order, untill there was a request for a re-hearing en banc. Is that not correct?
6.3.2009 1:14pm
Richard Nieporent (mail):
Pluribus,

Thanks for your Civics 101 lesson. I now see that you are right. We shouldn’t expect each Senate to actually be well informed on the subject he is voting on. Once the committee votes out a bill, it should be automatically passed. I guess that is the reason why the Senate passed the stimulus package without reading it.

Nobody is expecting Reid, or any of the Senators for that matter, to read all of her decisions. However, I would hope that they would at least read some of the more controversial ones. Otherwise, they are not fulfilling their role of advice and consent.
6.3.2009 1:17pm
DW Be Quiet:
David Welker said:

Anyway, I just wanted to compliment you on choosing to bring rude skepticism about the intelligence of other people to the discussion. I want you to know that I found that approach to be very persuasive! You must be so smart! Yes you are! You are the smartest! Go you! *pats you on the head* Fetch!


It's funny that you ridicule Professor Adler for immaturity and then fall into a black hole of immaturity yourself. Please grow up.
6.3.2009 1:23pm
dmv (www):
What, are you kidding? You're expecting the Senate to read Sotomayor opinions before voting on her? The Senate? The same body in which the majority of Senators didn't bother reading the NIE before they voted on authorizing the use of force against Iraq?

Please, people. Wake up.
6.3.2009 1:23pm
David Welker (www):

It's funny that you ridicule Professor Adler for immaturity and then fall into a black hole of immaturity yourself. Please grow up.


Your right. I shouldn't make fun of someone who is so insecure that they need to attack the intelligence of someone else before proceeding with their point.
6.3.2009 1:25pm
pluribus:
Richard Nieporent:

Thanks for your Civics 101 lesson. I now see that you are right. We shouldn’t expect each Senate to actually be well informed on the subject he is voting on. Once the committee votes out a bill, it should be automatically passed.

Maybe you should take your Civics 101 lesson over again. Committees make recommendations, and when there is disagreement in the committee they issue minority and majority reports. When a judicial nomination is considered, they may recommend approval or disapproval. If they recommend approval, then it goes to the full Senate, with senators free to accept or reject the recommendation. If they recommend rejection, the nomination dies in committee and is not submitted to the full Senate for vote. What is it about this process that tells you the recommendation "should be automatically passed"? And what makes you think that, when a senator reads the committee reports and bases his or her vote on the committee recommendation, the senators is not "well informed"? That is the process that has been put in place for the very purpose of informing the senators about what they are voting on. If each senator tried to do the work of all the senate committees, they would be overwhelmed and unable to do anything at all. Again, I urge Sotomayor critics to get their facts straight. It would help to lend some credibility to their opinions.
6.3.2009 1:36pm
DW Be Quiet:
Grammar fail:


Your right (sic). I shouldn't make fun of someone who is so insecure that they need to attack the intelligence of someone else before proceeding with their point.


"You ARE right."
6.3.2009 1:46pm
Dave N (mail):
pluribus,

Actually you are wrong when you wrote:
When a judicial nomination is considered, they may recommend approval or disapproval. If they recommend approval, then it goes to the full Senate, with senators free to accept or reject the recommendation. If they recommend rejection, the nomination dies in committee and is not submitted to the full Senate for vote.
With respect to Supreme Court nominees, even if the majority of the Judiciary Committee votes against a nominee, the nominee's name is still sent to the Senate for a confirmation vote.

For example, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted 9-5 to recommend that the Senate reject Robert Bork's nomination, which it ultimately did by a vote of 58-42.
6.3.2009 1:53pm
Richard Nieporent (mail):
Maybe you should take your Civics 101 lesson over again. Committees make recommendations, and when there is disagreement in the committee they issue minority and majority reports. When a judicial nomination is considered, they may recommend approval or disapproval. If they recommend approval, then it goes to the full Senate, with senators free to accept or reject the recommendation. If they recommend rejection, the nomination dies in committee and is not submitted to the full Senate for vote. What is it about this process that tells you the recommendation "should be automatically passed"? And what makes you think that, when a senator reads the committee reports and bases his or her vote on the committee recommendation, the senators is not "well informed"? That is the process that has been put in place for the very purpose of informing the senators about what they are voting on.

In other words, pluribus, the Senators will actually have to read multiple reports to do their job. And guess what they are going to find in those reports, numerous passages from her decisions. I guess then poor Senator Reid will have to at least read parts of her decisions after all.

If each senator tried to do the work of all the senate committees, they would be overwhelmed and unable to do anything at all.

Some of us look upon that as feature, not a bug!
6.3.2009 1:55pm
David M. Nieporent (www):
While Supreme Court justices are very important, their confirmation isn't the most important business before the Senate. The Senate should not come to an absolute standstill while all 100 senators devote themselves to doing nothing more than reading every last word that Sotomayor has written in her life.
Why do you think that the Senate would need to "come to a standstill"? How slow a reader do you think Reid is? Besides, the claim that he needs to "read every last word" is a strawman; nobody suggested that. The issue here is that Reid has never read anything she has written.

You wish that members of the legislature would read every last word in the legislation they voted on. That does not strike me as sensible. But, according to you I guess it is okay to avoid reading legislation that you vote against. That makes a lot of sense! It is okay to be "uninformed" voting against legislation, but not for it? That makes no sense. You are not advocating that Senators and Representatives make uninformed votes, are you?

It is not necessary for members of the legislator to read every line of every piece of legislation to be "informed" about what that legislation does.
If you were less interested in pretending to some superiority you don't possess, you'd understand that the situations aren't parallel. If a bill is voted down, no part of it becomes law, so the details of each of its provisions remain irrelevant. But if a bill is approved, every part becomes law. Courts will look at it later and try to give effect to each individual word, on the fiction that those words were carefully chosen and intended to each have effect and not be superfluous. If the people who approved them didn't read them and don't know what they say, then that fiction just becomes a joke.

See, there is this really cool thing that some of us at least of have been very cognizant of since Adam Smith wrote The Wealth of Nations. That thing is called division of labor. I know, crazy idea, isn't it!
It is, yes, in that you don't understand it in the least. It isn't applicable here. We do not divide the labor of voting among "committees." The committees do preliminary work, but the whole Senate votes on confirmation. Reid is expected to do so, not to say that he has delegated the vote to someone else. And if he isn't delegating his vote, he can't legitimately delegate his thinking. That's not "division of labor." I don't build my computer again after Apple builds it.
6.3.2009 2:08pm
Jim Copland (www):

Your right. I shouldn't make fun of someone who is so insecure that they need to attack the intelligence of someone else before proceeding with their point.

Well, I'm sorry if you were offended by my snarky remark regarding Reid; but perhaps you shouldn't attack others' intelligence while writing, "Your right."

Reid publicly accused Justice Thomas of authoring "poorly written" opinions, and when pressed for an example cited a Supreme Court decision in which Thomas had not written separately. So I don't think Reid's ability to make much out of judicial opinions is entitled to much deference, myself.
6.3.2009 2:14pm
pluribus:
Dave, you're right, and I was wrong. It appears that the committee could refuse to report the nomination, in which case it would not be voted on by the full Senate, but that it has been the practice for a long time to report "even those Supreme Court nominations that were opposed by a committee majority, thus allowing the full Senate to make the final decision." Thanks for the correction.
6.3.2009 2:41pm
one of many:
I would be more willing to accept the position that Senators do not have the time to read the opinions of judges before voting to confirm or deny if it weren't for the fact that Senator Reid had the time to read several opinions of Janice Brown when she was up for a Circuit Court judgeship. Of course Senator Reid is an ethical man who takes his responsibilities as US Senator seriously and would never allow base partisanship to cloud his judgement, however being too busy cannot be the explanation for why he was able to find the time to do analysis of opinions for Brown but not for Sotomayor.
6.3.2009 2:57pm
loki13 (mail):

If the people who approved them didn't read them and don't know what they say, then that fiction just becomes a joke.


Uh, that's why it's a fiction. They don't.

As to whether it's a joke? Funny is in the mind of the beholder.
6.3.2009 3:00pm
MarkField (mail):
I'm now wondering how many of Samuel Alito's or John Roberts' opinions were read by the Republican leadership. Or, for that matter, how many of the opinions of any nominees are typically read.

But I think the criticism of Reid overlooks an even more important issue: surely a President who nominates should have read all the opinions. No doubt Bush did just that with Alito and Roberts. And no doubt a President should read, word for word, every single bill which comes across his desk.
6.3.2009 3:50pm
David Welker (www):

Well, I'm sorry if you were offended by my snarky remark regarding Reid; but perhaps you shouldn't attack others' intelligence while writing, "Your right."


Your right. Because the best measure of intelligence is of course whether someone makes a grammatical error in a very quickly written blog comment! And then, when they intentional repeat the error, well, that makes it even worse. The horror! The horror!

I should point out, because you appear to be confused, that I wasn't attacking your intelligence. I was attacking your lack of civility and your attacks on the intelligence of another person. Whether you have any issues with Senator Reid, I am sure that as a lawyer and a member of the State Bar of Nevada, he can read judicial opinions.

I for one do not condone the attacks that have been directed at Clarence Thomas's intelligence, whether by Senator Reid or anyone else. (I reserve judgment on the attacks that have gone to his ethics, simply because I am not familiar with the facts.) But, instead of impugning Senator Reid's intelligence in retribution (which is not an intelligent move, but rather an emotional one) perhaps your statements would be better directed at making the substantive statement you would like to make.
6.3.2009 4:12pm
Jim Copland (www):
12:30:

Your recent comment assumes that you are smart enough to make heads or tails of any opinion. . . . I am skeptical of [this] assumption[]. (emphasis in original)

4:12:

I should point out, because you appear to be confused, that I wasn't attacking your intelligence.

Perhaps you might defend this apparent contradiction by saying you were simply being sarcastic in your original post. And yet, you seem to take such umbrage in the practice, when employed by others...
6.3.2009 4:21pm
David Welker (www):

It is, yes, in that you don't understand it in the least. It isn't applicable here. We do not divide the labor of voting among "committees." The committees do preliminary work, but the whole Senate votes on confirmation. Reid is expected to do so, not to say that he has delegated the vote to someone else. And if he isn't delegating his vote, he can't legitimately delegate his thinking.


Your impractical theories about how legislatures should work flies in the face of the practical ways that legislatures really do work.

Back in Adam Smith's day, of course, there were artisans who insisted that all the steps of creating a product should be in the hands of one skilled artisan. But of course, while it is certainly possible to not have a division of labor, it is definitely impractical if you must accomplish more than making a few items.

In an ideal world, where time was an infinite resource, then of course every Senator should spend an infinite amount of time considering every last implication of every single comma and period in every single piece of legislation they vote on. In this world, they should consider the implications for not only humans, animals, but also for inanimate objects. In the real world, that is impractical. It is not merely a luxury to delegate work to other Senators and to staff members, it is a practical necessity.

To vote, one does not need to have considered the implications of every comma or period. One needs to know what the legislation does (with some level of faith that one is being correctly informed - based on the fact that multiple eyes have in fact reviewed every period and comma) and then vote on that.

Would it be NICE if time were unlimited? Absolutely. But there are only 24 hours in each day. As such, a Senator should spend his time on those activities which are most beneficial to his constituents and for the United States as a whole. In the case of Senator Reid, that probably does not translate into reading too many Sotomayor opinions absent a real controversy amongst the Democratic Senators on the Judiciary Committee about the wisdom of her confirmation.
6.3.2009 4:24pm
David M. Nieporent (www):
I'm now wondering how many of Samuel Alito's or John Roberts' opinions were read by the Republican leadership.
Well, we don't know. Perhaps because they weren't dumb enough to brag about the fact that they hadn't read any of them.
6.3.2009 4:33pm
David Welker (www):
Jim Copland,

I was being sarcastic. Obviously. I was mirroring what you were saying. I, however, wasn't aware that you were being sarcastic. But, if you were, may I ask about what? In suggesting that Senator Reid was not smart enough to read a judicial opinion? In that case, in my opinion your sarcasm was poorly executed because it was far from evident that you were not serious and thus it came off as a hackish partisan attack. (Something that is not unknown to occur on this blog.)

Anyway, I will say this. While I do not object to sarcasm, like all good things, it can be taken too far and it also can be poorly executed. So, in all seriousness, I will say that you did error in your initial remarks about Senator Reid. Although, in an understandable way. Keep in mind that a lot is lost in the medium of context of comments to blog posts (or email) that would be perfectly clear if you were to say the very same thing in person.
6.3.2009 4:40pm
MarkField (mail):

Well, we don't know. Perhaps because they weren't dumb enough to brag about the fact that they hadn't read any of them.


While Harry Reid is well beyond dumb enough to brag about it, that hardly makes the substantive point better. On either side.
6.3.2009 4:43pm
David Welker (www):
Richard Nieporent


Some of us look upon that as feature, not a bug!


Which is precisely why we should look at claims by libertarians with MUCH skepticism claims that the legislatures should proceed in a highly inefficient manner without a division of labor.

From a libertarian perspective, it is all good:


Libertarian: Oh my! Since the legislators are so busy contemplating every comma and period of every sentence of legislation they pass, they don't have time to do much. But there are so many unsolved problems. And they won't be solved by government. That is so horrible! *Starts crying crocodile tears.*


Right. Look, I am sure if you wanted to minimize the number of widgets that are manufactured, one way to do that would be to insist that only "authentic" widgets which are produced without utilizing any division of labor should be produced.

Basically, I think libertarian claims that a division of labor should not be utilized in the production of legislation should be met with the same skepticism that libertarians would probably give to proposals by a trade association that the way widgets are manufactured MUST be regulated to eliminate division of labor, in order to increase the "authentic" quality of such widgets. The claim is just a little too self-serving. =)
6.3.2009 4:51pm
David Welker (www):
MarkField,

Why would you buy into David Nieporent's claim that Senator Reid was "bragging" about this?

I personally appreciate Senator Reid's honesty. It is better that people understand how legislatures really work rather than have illusions. Ultimately, such illusions can be fatal to legislative proposals. People are just *shocked* when legislation or regulations turn out to be thousands of pages, because they don't understand the process by which it is produced. It is better that they not be shocked -- it actually makes it easier to get things done -- because it is harder for interest groups to exploit that ignorance into thinking that something is especially unusual. I remember a lot of opposition to the Clinton health care proposals highlighted how many pages the proposals took. But, that is just the nature of these sorts of proposals.
6.3.2009 4:58pm
mls (www):
Hey, you stole my question!
6.3.2009 5:10pm
DW Be Quiet:

Your impractical theories about how legislatures should work flies in the face of the practical ways that legislatures really do work.

Back in Adam Smith's day, of course, there were artisans who insisted that all the steps of creating a product should be in the hands of one skilled artisan. But of course, while it is certainly possible to not have a division of labor, it is definitely impractical if you must accomplish more than making a few items.

In an ideal world, where time was an infinite resource, then of course every Senator should spend an infinite amount of time considering every last implication of every single comma and period in every single piece of legislation they vote on. In this world, they should consider the implications for not only humans, animals, but also for inanimate objects. In the real world, that is impractical. It is not merely a luxury to delegate work to other Senators and to staff members, it is a practical necessity.


Might I point out that if legislatures did spend all their time reading every opinion, or every bill that came before them, we all might live in a better world. After all, seems to me that they just screw things up when they get their hands on them (of course, with noted exceptions). While we do need some laws passed, an informed legislature that does read everything means less gets done which probably means we all win.
6.3.2009 5:16pm
David M. Nieporent (www):
But, that is just the nature of these sorts of proposals.
It's the nature of scorpions to sting, too, but that doesn't mean we should act as enablers in letting them sting us. Better to just step on the little buggers.
6.3.2009 5:27pm
David Welker (www):

It's the nature of scorpions to sting, too, but that doesn't mean we should act as enablers in letting them sting us. Better to just step on the little buggers.


Yes, and I agree that to say that such and such is the nature of a thing does not constitute a substantive defense. That wasn't my point. =)
6.3.2009 5:44pm
RPT (mail):
"Reid was born in Searchlight, Nevada, the son of a miner in the hardscrabble camp 50 miles southeast of Las Vegas. He attended Basic High School in Henderson, Nevada, where he played football and met future Nevada governor Mike O'Callaghan, who was a teacher at Basic at the time. Reid attended Southern Utah University and Utah State University. He then got his juris doctor from George Washington University, while paying for law school while working for the United States Capitol Police."

The bar is lowered further still as the illiteracy comments come out, both as to Reid and Sotomayor. How low will it go before the hearings start?
6.3.2009 5:46pm
David Welker (www):

Might I point out that if legislatures did spend all their time reading every opinion, or every bill that came before them, we all might live in a better world. After all, seems to me that they just screw things up when they get their hands on them (of course, with noted exceptions). While we do need some laws passed, an informed legislature that does read everything means less gets done which probably means we all win.


That point of view totally makes sense from a libertarian perspective. Which is precisely why proposals from libertarians that a division of labor not be used by legislatures should be treated with special skepticism. From a libertarian perspective, it is a win-win:


Libertarian: Oh, the government will be "solving" less problems because of the procedural requirement I am advocating. That is so sad! Please ignore the fact that this just so happens to align with my substantive preferences regarding what Congress should do about most problems anyway!
6.3.2009 5:49pm
YHBT, YHL:
People are just *shocked* when legislation or regulations turn out to be thousands of pages, because they don't understand the process by which it is produced.


Judges have no problem pretending that these ten-thousand page enactments provide fair notice to people, and holding defendants to complete knowledge of those enactments.

I find that particular practice almost as dishonest as your conflation of Judge Sotomayor's entire body of work with the average length of one of her opinions.

It's not unreasonable for Reid to sample a few of her opinions, even if he delegates the majority of the work to committee and staff: Supreme Court Justice is an important job. The republic proposes to hire the woman to write.

I'm almost tempted to believe that Senator Reid made a deliberatively provocative statement in order to... zOMG... troll teh intertubes!

But that really is a stretch. Absent further explanation, if Senator Reid was my senator, he'd lose my vote over this. It just doesn't look he's doing his job.
6.3.2009 6:01pm
Frozen Esq. (mail):
Members of Congress stand for reelection ever 2 or 6 years, devote thousands of human hours to obtaining/retaining their seats via campaigning by canvassing, debating, pleading (and paying millions and millions of dollars for even that privilege). Yet the Senate, which has an Advise and Consent role here need not spend time reviewing the qualifications/appropriateness of a lifetime tenured position for the third and supposedly coequal branch of government?

I find the "not gonna bother cuz we're too busy" argument specious. It should not matter whether you construe the Advise and Consent role narrowly, or broadly, but there is a duty there and to blatantly abrogate that duty as Majority Leader is shameful and, frankly, embarrassing.
6.3.2009 6:14pm
Bad English:
“I find these two posts of yours about Reid, especially their sarcastic titles, to be immature. You can do better than that, I would hope. Do you have anything intelligent to say or is the extent of your intellect making up lame titles?”

”Oh, and your views are wholly impractical. That your impractical views are framed in a sarcastic and immature way is icing on the cake.”

“Your recent comment assumes that you are smart enough to make heads or tails of any opinion. It also assumes you are smart enough to evaluate the intelligence of others. It also assumes that the Nevada Bar admits attorneys who cannot understand even the simplest judicial opinion. I am skeptical of all three of these assumptions.

Anyway, I just wanted to compliment you on choosing to bring rude skepticism about the intelligence of other people to the discussion. I want you to know that I found that approach to be very persuasive! You must be so smart! Yes you are! You are the smartest! Go you! *pats you on the head* Fetch!”

“I should point out, because you appear to be confused, that I wasn't attacking your intelligence. I was attacking your lack of civility and your attacks on the intelligence of another person.”


David Welker: Step. Away. From. The. Computer.
6.3.2009 6:31pm
Kazinski:
Reid has beclowned himself when it comes to evaluating justices and their opinions. Here's an account of his embarrassing performance on "Meet the Press", and dug himself deeper in a few weeks later on "Inside Politics"

Readers of this column will recall that last month we criticized Reid for calling Justice Clarence Thomas an "embarrassment" and saying Thomas's opinions are "poorly written," in contrast with those of the brilliant Antonin Scalia. We noted that Reid hadn't given an example of a poorly written Thomas opinion, and wondered if Reid's statement didn't amount to simple bigotry: stereotyping Thomas as unintelligent because he is black.

An alert reader points out that on the Dec. 26 episode of "Inside Politics," a little-watched CNN show, Reid actually did name such an opinion, at the request of host Ed Henry (we've corrected several obvious transcription errors here):

Henry: When you were asked on NBC's "Meet the Press" whether or not you could support Justice Thomas to be chief justice you said quote, "I think that he has been an embarrassment to the Supreme Court. I think that his opinions are poorly written." Could you name one of those opinions that you think is poorly written?

Reid: Oh sure, that's easy to do. You take the Hillside Dairy case. In that case you had a dissent written by Scalia and a dissent written by Thomas. There--it's like looking at an eighth-grade dissertation compared to somebody who just graduated from Harvard.

Scalia's is well reasoned. He doesn't want to turn stare decisis precedent on its head. That's what Thomas wants to do. So yes, I think he has written a very poor opinion there and he's written other opinions that are not very good.

It's interesting to learn that in Nevada eighth-graders write dissertations; we guess that explains how Harry Reid got to be as erudite as he is. He must immerse himself deeply in legal scholarship to be familiar with a case like Hillside Dairy v. Lyons, which doesn't exactly rank up there with Marbury v. Madison, Brown v. Board of Education and Roe v. Wade among famous Supreme court rulings.

To be honest, we'd never even heard of Hillside Dairy until we read the CNN transcript, so we went and looked it up. It turns out to be a 2003 case about California milk regulation. Here is Thomas's opinion in full:

I join Parts I and III of the Court's opinion and respectfully dissent from Part II, which holds that §144 of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996, 7 U.S.C. §7254, "does not clearly express an intent to insulate California's pricing and pooling laws from a Commerce Clause challenge." Ante, at 6-7. Although I agree that the Court of Appeals erred in its statutory analysis, I nevertheless would affirm its judgment on this claim because "[t]he negative Commerce Clause has no basis in the text of the Constitution, makes little sense, and has proved virtually unworkable in application," Camps Newfound/Owatonna, Inc. v. Town of Harrison, 520 U.S. 564, 610 (1997) (Thomas, J., dissenting), and, consequently, cannot serve as a basis for striking down a state statute.

6.3.2009 7:12pm
MarkField (mail):

Why would you buy into David Nieporent's claim that Senator Reid was "bragging" about this?


Two reasons:

1. I'm not a fan of Reid's and I couldn't resist the snark, even when directed at one of my "own".

2. DMN and I go way back on the internet and I was joking with him.

In any case, I don't think the substantive criticism of Reid -- that he should read the opinions -- has much merit for the reasons I gave (somewhat satirically) in my original post.
6.3.2009 7:22pm
David Welker (www):
Bad English,

I am still waiting for the point to be articulated. As if.
6.3.2009 7:28pm
David M. Nieporent (www):
It's not unreasonable for Reid to sample a few of her opinions, even if he delegates the majority of the work to committee and staff: Supreme Court Justice is an important job. The republic proposes to hire the woman to write.
Indeed. The strawman that he needs to read every one of her opinions is just that: a strawman. But his staff could do some culling, selecting some representative opinions for him to read.
6.3.2009 9:32pm
David Welker (www):

Indeed. The strawman that he needs to read every one of her opinions is just that: a strawman. But his staff could do some culling, selecting some representative opinions for him to read.


I think is perfectly reasonable for him to read some of her opinions. But, of course, the issue is how "representative" these really would be. I am sure they would be representative in some respect, and not in others.

Would this exercise in opinion reading likely change Reid's vote if Durbin, Schumer, Feingold, Leahy, Feinstein, Spector, and all the rest were going to vote for her knowing far more? I think that is unlikely. But, I would have to concede it would not be a totally useless exercise. Would it be more useful than just reading the reports from the committee? I am not so sure about that, especially if he also follows and considers the arguments of the minority side of the aisle?

I am not so sure about that. While I think it is perfectly reasonable to read some sample of opinions, I think it is equally reasonable not to.
6.3.2009 9:37pm
David M. Nieporent (www):
Would this exercise in opinion reading likely change Reid's vote if Durbin, Schumer, Feingold, Leahy, Feinstein, Spector, and all the rest were going to vote for her knowing far more?
I think that if Harry Reid campaigned for Senate in Nevada on the platform, "I'm not planning to do any original thinking; I'm just going to vote the way Durbin, Schumer, Feingold, Leahy, Feinstein, Specter, and all the rest" tell me I should, he'd probably get 3 votes, including his own. (And that assumes he's planning to vote, as oppose to delegating that job to someone else!)
6.3.2009 10:41pm
Michelle Dulak Thomson (mail):
DMN,

Allow me to congratulate you on not conflating Phil Spector and Arlen Specter as, oh, 80% of commenters on all the blogs I read seem to have done this last week. I mean, all white men don't really look alike. And one of these really is a lot creepier than the other. Lest there be any misunderstanding, I mean the one who came by the "o" legitimately, not through typo-land.
6.3.2009 11:12pm
David Welker (www):
David M. Nieporent,

But of course, all of the Senators must delegate work to others. And in fact, any key decision-maker working for a significant organization is going to have to do some delegation.

You, in fact, have already conceded that. You agree that it is okay for Reid to use his staff to help him choose some of Sotomayor's judicial opinions, which the staff will certify are "representative." Okay, so all this filtering is being delegated under your model. And it also relies on trust. Reid must trust his staff to select opinions that are representative.

But if that is okay, why isn't it okay for Reid to rely on his staff to summarize Sotomayor's opinions? Of course it would be. In many ways, written summaries might be even more informative than reading original opinions. Of course, there is a trust issue here. But, that is also true in the case of having his staff select "representative" opinions.

And if it is okay for Reid to rely on his own staff, it is also okay for him to rely on the staff of like-minded Senators. There is no reason why he couldn't. If he trusts another Senator, including that Senator's judgment in selecting staff members, he should be able to rely on them as well. For accurate information. Also, since their are multiple eyes here, it is unlikely that anyone would be in a position to feed him bad information.

In fact, this is no different than the position that the President of the United States is in. He has to rely on others to filter information for him. He is not really in a position to do that all himself. Here, there are also trust issues. But, they are not something that cannot be overcome.

Finally, it should be noted that just because Reid is delegating work on this particular issue to others, that does not imply that he is not doing his own share overall. Also, it does not mean that he does not exercise his independent judgment based on the information that others initially uncover through their research.
6.3.2009 11:29pm
David Welker (www):
Michelle Dulak Thomson,

Pshaw. I spelled it with an e the first time!


No, in other words, if Leahy, Feingold, Feinstein, Schumer, Durbin, Specter et al. and their staffs all come to a positive view of this nomination without dissent amongst their ranks, I will defer to their judgment because they have similar judicial philosophies. Time is a scarce resources, and the United States Senate has other extremely important business to attend to other than the very important business of confirming Sotomayor.


That said, I have messed up the name enough in the past.
6.3.2009 11:34pm
YHBT, YHL:
If he trusts another Senator, including that Senator's judgment in selecting staff members, he should be able to rely on them as well.


Transitive trust relationships are notoriously tricky. It's a well-known set of problems in the security field.

Aside from that, if he does have trusted staff, then he should take political responsibilty for their work. “Political responsibility” may be even more slippery than “transitive trust”, but all the same, somewhere there's got to be an attitude of “the buck stops here.”

Senator Reid should be able to assure the people of Nevada that his team is looking very closely at the writing of a woman considered for an important writing job.

He shouldn't be trying to cover his ass in case the nomination blows up over a controversial opinion that he never read.
6.3.2009 11:57pm
Chaz (mail):
David Welker bursting onto the scene:


"I find these two posts of yours ... to be immature. You can do better than that, I would hope. Do you have anything intelligent to say or is the extent of your intellect making up lame titles?"


Dude, you shouldn't have passed up that Dale Carnegie course. Making pronouncements on someone's intellect is not a reliable way to win friends and influence people.

Just so you know, my reaction was to say, "Well, there's a web site I'm never visiting." After reading a couple more of your comments, I came 'round 180 degrees, thinking, "I've got to see if this guy is for real." And so I became like the 230th person to see you sitting there imperious astride your pachyderm, resplendent in your Banana Republic safari duds. (Could you have found a graphic more befitting your tone? I don't think so.)
6.4.2009 8:56am
Chaz (mail):
This was truncated from my immediately prior post:

Just to keep this on topic, allow me to reply that much as we all agree that Reid, Durbin, Schumer, et al are terribly busy with the Business of the Nation and much as we are all familiar with the kabuki wherein they attempt to destroy the other side's nominees while high-tonedly defending those of their side against the same caliber of accusation, it is nice to think that our senators will bestir themselves to at least put on a show of promoting and preserving the quality of "the Highest Court in the Land."
6.4.2009 9:00am
Mikee (mail):
I am not a lawyer. I used to work as a semiconductor process engineer.

One of my early lessons in how the semiconductor industry works came from a maintenance tech, who brought me the documentation for maintenance of the multimillion dollar production toolset for which I was newly responsible. He asked me how he should clean inside the tool during maintenance, with one solvent or another.

I did not know offhand, being so new, and he then told me that it was not documented in the procedures, but that for the last 15 years he had used acetone followed by isopropyl alcohol followed by distilled water, because he had been taught to do so by his predecessor.

Then he asked me to document that in the procedures.

After a bit of research, I found that using just distilled water produced a significant yield improvement versus the old method.

Then he told me that the one with the wrench ran the tool.

When Senators don't read at least some of their legislation nor at least sample the work product of judicial nominees, they are delegating their jobs to their unelected staff and clerks, and whatever influences those individuals are under.

If I wanted a 25 year old staffer deciding on the confirmation of Supreme Court nominees, Reid would be a great Senator for me.
6.4.2009 9:37am
MarkField (mail):

Allow me to congratulate you on not conflating Phil Spector and Arlen Specter


"I've been Arlen Specter'd
Resurrected..."

Nah, doesn't scan.
6.4.2009 10:34am
Ryan Waxx (mail):
David Welker: I find your post that criticized the OP then immediately led off with a strawman:

"The Senate should not come to an absolute standstill while all 100 senators devote themselves to doing nothing more than reading every last word that Sotomayor has written in her life."

To be immature. Please refrain from putting words in people's mouths if you are going to be commenting on their maturity.
6.4.2009 11:19am
Cato The Elder (mail):
Chaz,

That last "paragraph" was some magnificent use of language.
6.4.2009 11:53am

Post as: [Register] [Log In]

Account:
Password:
Remember info?

If you have a comment about spelling, typos, or format errors, please e-mail the poster directly rather than posting a comment.

Comment Policy: We reserve the right to edit or delete comments, and in extreme cases to ban commenters, at our discretion. Comments must be relevant and civil (and, especially, free of name-calling). We think of comment threads like dinner parties at our homes. If you make the party unpleasant for us or for others, we'd rather you went elsewhere. We're happy to see a wide range of viewpoints, but we want all of them to be expressed as politely as possible.

We realize that such a comment policy can never be evenly enforced, because we can't possibly monitor every comment equally well. Hundreds of comments are posted every day here, and we don't read them all. Those we read, we read with different degrees of attention, and in different moods. We try to be fair, but we make no promises.

And remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.